Catalyst Caucus

I am well aware of Senator Meeks proposal SB3063 to turn LSC’s in Chicago into advisory bodies and hand over to the CPS Board all powers formally delegated to LSCs. I am not supportive of that idea in the least. The remarkable fact that the Chicago Sun Times has opposed this bill indicates that LSCs have a future.

But the biggest problem LSCs face are not their supposed incompetence, it is the systematic abandonment of school reform organizations that provide guidance, support, and training for LSCs by Chicago’s philanthropic organizations. Isolated members of LSCs can not take on complex budget issues that come down to the local school level from the district headquarters without research and basically lobbying support. Isolated LSCs can not critically examine the concept of performance management as guiding principle of the school district, nor are they likely to have the ability to be able to influence the district on the components of what CPS calls the School Performance Management Toolkit that direct principals in their work.

In the February 17 edition of the Defender Senator Meeks explained the logic of his bill as follows: “Every time I talk to CPS they say they do not hire principals so they are not to blame for any leadership flaws at schools. So to bring the issue of education to the discussion table and to hold CPS more responsible for school leadership, I have proposed a bill to do just that. The principal is the most important person at a school. After all, they are the ones who hire teachers.” The Senator goes on to say, “Most LSC members are not sophisticated enough to pick principals and approve budgets explained. So basically LSCs are being used as scapegoats for failing schools. I think CPS could do a better job at hiring principals than LSCs.” As most of us familiar with the power of the Chicago Board of Education under Article 34 of the Illinois School Code, the Board has vast power to intervene in schools and has done so. It is far from clear to me that CPS has had an outstanding record in relation to picking principals to effectively run schools in poor communities.

The Board’s exhibits this lack of confidence in itself by utilizing contractual agents such as AUSL to hire principals and staff at some of Chicago’s "problem schools." Effectively Senator Meeks is under his bill turning over the principal selection process to third party contractors for many schools. If the Board had confidence in its ability to select effective principals it would not be utilizing AUSL to do this at turn around schools. Moreover, CPS can still say in many cases they say they do not hire principals so they are not to blame for any leadership flaws at schools they can blame their contractor. If the CPS closes a school and reopens it as a charter, then it also can tell Senator Meeks they did not hire the principals so they are not to blame for any leadership flaws at these charter schools.

Communities should be responsible for their schools; LSCs are a base form of democracy that are conceptually liked to the idea that citizens should control public schools. I know this idea is anathema to the popular idea of Mayoral control of urban education, where the urban chief executive officer picks both the school board and its educational leader. This idea rules not just in Chicago, and one day in the future this idea for urban educational reform too will become passé.

Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of democratic elected control over education. In 1820, in a letter to Joseph Cabell, Jefferson expressed his support for some type of elected citizen control over schools in order to “keep elementary education out of the hands of fanaticizing preachers.” We may today be faced with a dual problem of both keeping schools out of the hands of fanaticizing preachers and the hands of third party contractors selected by an unelected Board of Education.

ILSCs were created for a very real purpose - to give parents and community members a voice in and shared responsibility for school decision-making, and that this is a worthwhile and important objective. (I currently serve on the LSC of my children's school, and was a community representative before that at another school.)

I also share Patricia Watkins' view that not all LSCs function well. More troubling, the breakdown of LSCs too-frequently seems to happen in schools that most need forceful advocates for change.

Part of the challenge is that LSCs are limited in who they can recruit. I sit on the board of several organizations, and none would be happy if they were told they could only recruit board members from a particular geographic area. At a time when many schools have developed a particular focus (world languages, math & science, the arts, social justice), it is unfortunate that the schools cannot seek out specialized talent and experience wherever it may be.

Most of what I learned about being a strong board member I learned by watching others more experienced than I navigate important and challenging issues. Some LSCs have members with leadership, management and/or board experience. Others do not. And while there is no question that parents and residents of all stripes - regardless of past experience - have value to add to school governance, it is equally clear that having some members on a Council with organizational experience (and the confidence and fortitude that can provide in tackling serious issues) is desireable.

So while I am strongly in favor of maintaining channels for local input and control, I'm also in favor of finding responsible ways to ensure that LSCs include the specialized talent they need to successfully advocate for the school. (What about adding a third community representative and allowing community reps to be from anywhere in the city? Voters would still be from the school's draw area and be in control of who is seated, but an Arts school might recruit an artist who lives outside the school's boundaries, or a math & science school might recruit a professor from a nearby university. Or if a school is struggling with issues around social and emotional development and support, they might recruit someone from that field to run. And of course, if these candidates are not attractive to the community, they will not be elected.)

I understand the frustration that underlies Sen. Meeks' legislation, and think he's right to want to ensure CPS takes responsibility for the quality of its school leaders. And he's further right that LSCs do not always play the role we might wish them to play in hiring and overseeing strong leaders. Given the importance of involving parents and community members in schools, however, it's worth thinking creatively about how to further that objective without eroding LSCs.